The Shroud - Supernatural Hypothesis and Natural Hypothesis

There are, in general, two hypotheses about how the Shroud came to be. The first is that the shroud represents the work of human ingenuity. The second is that the shroud represents an artifact of supernatural activity.

We'll explore the supernatural hypothesis first. In very general terms, if something is the artifact of a supernatural process, we have no particular expectations about what sort of physical evidence we should expect to accompany it. In other words, there is no scientific way to test a supernatural hypothesis. The shroud could be the artifact of a supernatural process, and there is no way that this hypothesis could be completely ruled out, because it is not as though supernatural activity would leave any tell-tale marks.

So, there is really no scientific way to test the supernatural hypothesis.

Let's assume for a second that the shroud is an artifact of supernatural activity. If it is, we still need to keep in mind that there are at least two sources of supernatural activity. On the one hand, there is divine supernatural activity (including the various angels and wonderworking prophets). On the other hand, there is demonic supernatural activity.

There is, again, no way to discern "scientifically" the difference between the two kinds. Moreover, in this case there is no alleged witness to the shroud's creation. So, the difference cannot be discerned from the historical context.

So, again there is really no scientific way to test the hypothesis that the supernatural activity is divine.

Even if the shroud is an artifact of supernatural activity, and even if it is the result of divine activity, that still leaves the question: of what activity? Of course, Shroud lovers think that the activity has something to do with the person of Christ. Yet there is nothing on the Shroud that say, "Christ was here." There have been lots of people crucified. The apostle Peter is one example of other people that we know had supernatural power from God and who were crucified.

Yet again there is really no scientific way to test the hypothesis that the divine supernatural activity was Jesus as opposed to Peter as opposed to anyone else.

In short, even if the supernatural hypothesis is true, there is really no way to prove it scientifically, no way scientifically to distinguish divine from demonic supernatural activity, and no scientific way to discriminate between Peter and Jesus.

What about a natural hypothesis? If it is merely a natural artifact, then various hypotheses can be tested. However, of course, while the shroud is still interesting as an example, perhaps, of the earliest known pair of photographs. If that is what the shroud is, the technological evidence argues for a relatively late date.

Mixed Hypotheses

No one that I know of has suggested that the shroud was created by supernatural power ex nihilo. Thus, a lot of the hypotheses are really mixed hypotheses: partly natural, partly supernatural. The natural parts of these can be tested. For example, the linen of the shroud can be tested by radioactive testing. It has been tested, and it came back as 13-14th century linen.

This has led shroud defenders to claim that the portion tested was a part of the shroud that was a repair to the original shroud. Thus, on this theory the shroud is only partly fake. To test this theory, it would be necessary to do radioactive testing on other parts of the shroud.

But ultimately, why bother? There is no real reason to suppose that the shroud is of supernatural origin. There is no possible scientific evidence that it is of supernatural origin, that it is of divine origin, or that it relates to Jesus Christ as opposed to someone else. At present, the most reliable dating technique has dated the linen to the 13-14th century. Shroud defenders will doubtless point to various criticisms of the testing, but at most those suggest that it would be nice to confirm the original results with more testing.

- TurretinFan

P.S. Jason Engwer has a post up on the question, "Is the Shroud of Turin Demonic?" Jason states that "we use probability judgments" about these things. But, of course, these are not probabilities in any rigor sense of the term. They are just speculation, and the "probability" ends up being fully determined by how much the evaluator wants a particular conclusion to be true.

There is one item of interest in his post, however: "The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who would want us to think the Shroud is something other than what it seems to be." What it seems to be is a photo negative of a man, with blood applied to it, on medieval linen. The burden is on folks like Engwer to establish that it is more than it seems to be.

But, of course, he cannot meet that burden. It's not his fault - there is just no Scriptural or other historical support for the Shroud.

The most that scientific evidence could ever do for the shroud (in the best case for someone like Engwer) is to show that it was made in the 1st century in Palestine and has the blood of someone Jewish on it. In which case, we would still not actually know which of the myriad of crucified 1st century Jews the shroud pertained to.

In short, the shroud would be (by such tests) elevated to the status of the "Jesus tomb" ossuaries. But like the Jesus tomb ossuaries, there would still be nothing to positively connect the shroud to Jesus. It would just be wishful thinking on the part of shroud admirers - just as it is wishful thinking for the ossuary advocates.

Nevertheless, shroud advocates are much worse off than ossuary advocates. The shroud has already been proven to be from the 13-14th century at the earliest - the ossuary may well be from the 1st century.

-TurretinFan

Dishonoring the Truth about the Shroud

Jason Engwer is great guy and has produced lots of useful and helpful material. I really appreciate his on-line work, and I hope that no one will be so foolish as to think that the criticism I'm about to offer is supposed to reflect badly on him personally. My problem is with his statement, not him.

In particular, his comment asserting:

The large majority of the evidence suggests that the Shroud of Turin predates the medieval era. The 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud is an exception that's often cited. However, there are a lot of problems with that carbon testing. Dan Porter has gathered together some of the relevant evidence here.

is misleading at best and more generally speaking, out and out false.

The statement is misleading because "evidence" isn't like people. It's not like there are five personified evidences, named James, Bob, and Sparky, and only Sparky says X, while James and Bob say Y.

Moreover, even within categories of evidence, how we pick our categories ends up determining the majority. There are three main categories of evidence: Scriptural, historical inquiry, and scientific examination.

On Scriptural inquiry, there is virtually nothing to support the shroud. The Scriptures specifically relate that Jesus' body was wrapped in multiple linen sheets (not a single shroud), that his body was covered with about 75 pounds (American weight) of spices, and that his head was separately wrapped. Moreover, the long-haired person depicted in the shroud does not correspond well with Paul's comment about nature teaching that is a shame for men to have long hair, though it accords well with medieval European iconography. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture suggesting that Jesus ever left a miraculous image of himself on anything. Furthermore, the burial wrappings of Jesus are specifically described in Scripture, and there is no mention of a shroud. At best, one could hope to find a way to work a shroud into and around the Scriptural evidence, but the Scriptural evidence is uniformly against the Shroud's authenticity.

Historical evidence. The currently prevalent view is that the shroud we see today is the same shroud described for the first time in the 14th century. If this is the case, then the farthest back that the shroud can be documented is the fourteenth century. It's difficult to be sure whether this shroud is the same as that one, but let's concede that for the sake of argument. The absence of any prior history of the shroud (especially given the iconomania of the preceding centuries) is a bit like the dog that didn't bark. Be that as it may, at most the historical evidence can establish a 14th century date for the shroud.

Scientific evidence. The most reliable dating method that has been applied to the shroud is C-14 dating. Like every scientific test, there limits on that reliability. Nevertheless, three tests were performed, and the conclusion was that the material of the shroud dates to the 13th or 14th century with about 95% certainty.

People have proposed other dating techniques, ranging from the absurd to the trivial.

An example of an absurd dating technique is the technique of comparing the shroud to medieval iconography in terms of realism and/or technique. This is an absurd dating technique because it merely demonstrates that the shroud represents a unique artifact, regardless of its date. In other words, it's not as though the shroud represents 1st century Palestinian techniques, but not 14th century European techniques.

An example of a trivial dating technique is the "vanillin dating" approach. There are a number of obvious problems with this technique, the chief one of which is that it lacks any substantial body of scientific research that can authenticate it. A secondary problem with this technique is that the process involved is temperature dependent, and it is already known that the shroud was exposed to fire. A third problem is, if you actually bother to go and read the place where the "study" was offered up, the scientist who provided it himself acknowledged its shortcomings.

Looking at the "scientific" evidence in the light most favorable to those who imagine that the shroud is more ancient than History, Scripture, and Science all suggest, the most that can be said is that there is some kind of remote possibility that the sampled pieces of linen may have come from a part of shroud that was repaired by someone who deliberately attempted to deceive the viewer of the shroud by hiding the repair.

So, the best case scenario for shroud advocates is that part of the shroud is a hoax.

In point of fact, while there are mountains of evidence so-called, there is no reliable evidence that suggests that the shroud is any older than 13th century. The shroud may still be interesting, however, as the earliest known photographic negative.

The reason Mr. Engwer's comment is misleading at best is that dating techniques are not all equal. That said, I still love and appreciate Mr. Engwer, and I want that to be totally clear. I willingly accept his assertion that he honestly believes that he is simply convinced by what he thinks is the evidence.

-TurretinFan

Correcting Taylor Marshall

Mr. Marshall has a post up at the Roman communion blog, "Called to Communion," which he titled, "John Piper on “Correcting” the Apostles Creed". Both Piper and Grudem think that the phrase, "he descended into hell" is either confusing or wrong and that it would make sense to omit it from recitations of the Apostles' Creed.

After expressing sorrow and suggesting that they get their ideas from an anabaptistic, anti-credal tradition (nothing like poisoning the old well!), Marshall states:

There are potentially a number of errors here. One is that Christ Himself did not have a human soul. Many Protestants, without knowing it, do not believe that Christ has a human soul. They instead believe that Christ has a human body but that His deity serves as the animating principle of His body. Hence, when Christ died, His deity was naturally in Heaven. The conclusion is that He would have skipped Hell entirely.

Does Marshall really think that either Piper or Grudem falls into this category of people who deny Christ's true humanity? It's hard to see this comment as anything other than a straw man.

Marshall continues:

On the other end of the spectrum is the heretical doctrine of Calvin that states that Christ literally descended into the Gehenna of the damned in order to receive the full punishment of sin. This is contrary to Scripture, contrary to the Fathers, and contrary to orthodox Christology. {Read: Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell}.

The link is to a most ill-informed post (by the same inimitable - and who would want to - Taylor Marshall). The linked article is an exercise in demonstrating Mr. Marshall's inability to understand what he reads.

In any event, Calvin expounds at length on the article "he descended into hell," in his Institutes (link). In that section, Calvin evaluates a number of options, and ultimately concludes that Christ suffered the pains of hell on the cross, and consequently "descended into hell" in that way. In fact, Calvin makes it quite clear to someone with better reading skills than Mr. Marshall:

Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it.

If the rest of the section was unclear, this one at least should have popped out to Mr. Marshall before he started writing his post back in 2009, much less before he repeated his false accusation now. It was not after death, but before it that Christ (per Calvin) endured hell. Thus, Calvin did not teach that Christ's soul went to the Gahenna of the damned, as Marshall alleges.

Indeed, Professor R.F. White gently corrected Marshall back in 2009 (link), but perhaps a sterner rebuke is in order, since he has not only failed to correct his original post, but has continued the false accusation.

Skipping to the end of Marshall's post, it was amusing to find his comment:

PS: It is Catholic tradition that the 12 Apostles wrote the Apostles Creed. There are 12 lines in the Apostles Creed and each Apostle contributed a line. It was Saint Philip, according to pious tradition who added “He descended into Hell.”

Whether such tradition is "pious" or not, the line "he descended into Hell" is a later addition. Calvin mentions this fact in his Institutes, and Grudem spends a significant, some might say exorbitant, amount of space in his Systematic Theology demonstrating the same thing. It's one of a myriad of "pious" fables that are Rome's stock in trade.

-TurretinFan

Cardinal George Pell vs. Richard Dawkins - Some Thoughts

Someone directed me to a sort of informal debate between Cardinal Pell and Dawkins, in the form of a moderated Questions and Answers session. Dawkins came across as insecure, accusing the audience of bias (though they routinely cheered for his statements) and repeatedly asking the audience why they are laughing (such as at his comment that the "it depends on how you define 'nothing.'"

Pell was asked about evolution and his religion. He alleged that those in his communion can believe almost whatever they like about it. He took the position that men are descended from Neanderthals (Dawkins reacted to this much the way a Star Wars geek would react to you talking about Hans Solo instead of Han Solo and Pell blew it off). He said that the first time a soul was "human" was when it had various characteristics of communication and the like. When question about Adam and Eve, he took the position that they were just mythological, like "everyman." (around 30 minutes) He said he wasn't sure whether the Old Testament recounts God himself inscribing the ten commandments (33 minutes in).

Dawkins asks where original sin comes from if there is no real Adam and Eve.

When an atheist asks Pell (around 41 minutes in) what will happen to him when he dies, he says

(Cardinal) Well, I know from the Christian point of view, God loves everybody. But every genuine motion towards the truth is a motion towards God. And when an atheist dies, like everybody else, they'll be judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and beauty. But in the Christian view, God loves everyone except those who turn their back on him through evil acts.
(Moderator): Oh, so athiesm - not an evil act.
(Cardinal): No, not a - well, no I don't - in most cases its not.
...
(Moderator): Is it possible for an atheist to go to heaven?
(Cardinal): Well, it's not my business.
(Moderator): No, but well, you're the only authority we have here.
(Cardinal): I would say 'certainly, certainly!'

Dawkins acts shocked that Christians will be bodily resurrected.

Later on the Cardinal asserts that the idea of any child going to hell is grotesque and does not represent the Christian God (48 minutes in)

Around 49 minutes in, the Cardinal shares his views on hell and salvation from it:

(Moderator) Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?
(Cardinal) No, no, no. The only people - Well, (1) I hope nobody's in hell. We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and the light is just too much. God's light would be too much for us. But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history, that the scales of justice should work out and if they don't, life is radically unjust: the law of the jungle prevails.

The Cardinal's theodicy is, in essence, that freedom is necessary.

-TurretinFan

Don't Sweat that History Stuff ...

Carl Trueman expresses his frustration with attempts to force Roman apologists to confront history:

Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries.
Never mind. Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams.
Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.
Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority. After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.
Forget it. Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.

(complete post here)

Sadly, I've seen these or similar responses myself. Moreover, we can continue a lot of these empirical facts (mutatis mutandis) down to the present time.

One other point. Trueman says:

I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific.

"Berated" may be a strong term, but I have been among those who have criticized him for being too soft on Rome. Thus, I was particularly happy to see this post from him.

-TurretinFan

Interesting Observations from Benedict XVI

I am no fan of Benedict XVI. I pray for his salvation, but I fully agree with the Westminster divines about the nature of his office. That said, he made an interesting observation, according to the Vatican Information Service, in his remarks on April 11, 2012, during the morning general audience.

VIS reports:

Benedict XVI explained how on the evening of the day of the Resurrection the disciples were at home behind locked doors, full of fear and doubt at the recollection of the passion of their Lord. "This situation of anguish changed radically when Jesus arrived. He entered through the closed doors, was among them and brought them peace", peace which "for the community became source of joy, certainty of victory, trusting reliance on God".

Slightly later on comes the interesting twist:

"Today too the Risen One enters our homes and hearts, although sometimes the doors are closed", the Pope said, "He enters bringing joy and peace, life and hope, gifts we need for our human and spiritual rebirth". Only He can put an end to division, enmity, rancour, envy, mistrust and indifference. Only He can give meaning to the lives of those who are weary, sad and without hope.

Here's the good point, intentional or not. Sometimes - no always - the doors of men's hearts are closed to the gospel. By nature, we are all children of wrath and haters of God. Yet God is not blocked by closed doors. If He wishes, he can pass through the doors, bringing regeneration.
VIS also describes Benedict XVI as saying:

However, the Lord knew that His followers were still afraid. "For this reason He breathed upon them and regenerated them in His Spirit. This gesture was the sign of the new creation. With the gift of the Holy Spirit which came from the Risen Christ, a new world began".

There is no indication in the report that Benedict XVI put together the pieces in this way, but it is interesting how the observations he provided so fittingly describe a monergistic description of conversion.

Also interesting are his comments about regeneration occurring in the breathing upon them. One should be careful about reading too much into the English language report of a general audience comment that likely is original in another language, but it is interesting nonetheless. Were the disciples not previously regenerated by baptism? Was their original baptism not sacramental? If not, why not?

The teachings of Benedict XVI during these general audience are "official" teachings in some sense, and are even characterized as "catechesis." But Roman theology does not - to my knowledge - consider them "infallible" teachings.

-TurretinFan

Vatican and Economics

The Vatican may be a lot of things, but it is not especially capitalist. According to a report by the Vatican Information Service on March 30, 2012, the Bilateral Commission of the Delegations of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, held in Rome from March 27-29 (presided by Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, and Cardinal Peter Kodwo Turkson)issued a joint statement at the end of the meeting:

At the heart of Jewish and Catholic visions for a just economic order is the affirmation of the sovereignty and providence of the Creator of the world with Whom all wealth originates and which is given to humankind as a gift for the common good ... the purpose of an economic order is to serve the well being of society, affirming the human dignity of all people, each created in the divine image ... [this concept] posits the obligation to guarantee certain basic human needs, such as the protection of life, sustenance, clothing, housing, health, education and employment ...

(emphasis added)

Very interesting, don't you think?

I have heard a traditionally minded Brazilian member of the Roman communion tell me that the Communists are trying (successfully) to infiltrate the Brazilian hierarchy to destroy the Church.  I think he's only partly right.  The Roman church's views on economics are left-leaning already.  They are not capitalist, free-market views.

-TurretinFan

Which of the Two Kingdoms Does Westminster Seminary, California, Belong To?

That's a question that was, in effect, posed to David VanDrunen and discussed by Steven Wedgeworth (here).  VanDrunen ultimately came to saying "it doesn’t mean that we can always put every single activity and every single plot of ground here in one kingdom bucket or another. Sometimes it’s more complex than that."  What VanDrunen does not seem to recognize is that the complexity may be on the other foot.  In other words, it may be only the occasional thing that clearly is in one bucket or the other.  Everyone needs to eat to live, so it might appear to be a "common" activity but we are taught that one ought to give thanks to God for our daily bread.  Likewise, prayer may seem like a "spiritual" activity, but it involves language skills that are "common." Moreover, aside from a handful of atheists, everyone prays.  Some pray to the true and living God, others pray to a god or goddess of their imagination (Roman practices come to mind).  In short, VanDrunen's complexity problem is not limited to independent seminaries, but is far more extensive.  Indeed, the more extensive it is, the more it appears that the real problem is an ill-formed set.

Some Music/Comedy from My Friend Mylo

My friend, Mylo Hatzenbuhler, has some music, musical comedy, and comedy on-line.  You can check out his "A Loan Again" and "Born at the PCA," (not a denominational reference), as well as a snippet from one of his convention appearances (link).  He has an official YouTube page, where you can listen to his hit, "Heifer Bells."

You can also hear him weekly on 1450 KBMW or catch the podcast (here's the intro segment), and the first Friday of the month on KFYR-AM. He's also on the air on Wednesdays on KOVC 1490-AM (www.newsdakota.com) at about 6:40 a.m. Central Time.

Of course, you should check out his website: Farm Boy Music, including the store, where you can pick up his CDs.

His good buddy Clyde Bauman is also quite the singer and is featured in some of the non-comedy selections at Farm Boy Music.

-TurretinFan

Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia at Domain for Truth

EvangelZ at The Domain For Truth has a four-part paper on Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia, that can be found here: Part 1 - Introduction. Part 2 - Definition of Sola Ecclesia. Part 3 - Definition of Sola Scriptura. Part 4 -Arguments from Scripture and Answers to Some Objections.

- TurretinFan

Tolerance, the Third Reich, and Mark Shea

Mark Shea is complaining that the Third Reich was more tolerant of Rome's demands than the USA is.  Of course, in the U.S. government the Vice President (Biden), the minority leader in the House (Pelosi), and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Sebelius) are apparently baptized Roman Catholics, whereas in the Third Reich, Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and Heydrich were apparently baptized Roman Catholics.

Check out the 1933 Concordat between the Vatican and the Third Reich and some analysis of it.

-TurretinFan

N.B. We could also add many other baptized Roman Catholics in the government to the list, including five other cabinet members (Leon Panetta (Secretary of Defense), Kenneth L. Salazar (Secretary for the Interior), Thomas J. Vilsack (Secretary of Agriculture), Hilda L. Solis (Secretary of Labor), Ray LaHood (Secretary of Transportation)), and six of the nine Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayer).

The Potter's Precedent

In Romans 9, in response to the most frequent objection to Calvinism, Paul provides an answer from a potter analogy:

Romans 9:19-23

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory ... .

This theme and argument were not original to the Epistle to the Romans, or even to Paul more generally. In fact, this theme is not merely a New Testament theme. It is firmly rooted in the Old Testament.

The outlines for the theme are found first in Job.

Job 4:17-19

Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: how much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?

Here we see the basic point emphasized. Man is not in a position to judge his maker. It is not necessarily crystal clear that the "houses of clay" refers to the body as opposed to mud huts, but it becomes clear soon:

Job 10:9

Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?

The reference in Job harkens back to the Creation:

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Man is like pottery in this way - that God made us from the dust of the ground.

Against the backdrop of Job and Genesis (we know Genesis was written by Moses, but we don't know exactly when Job was written), Isaiah provides similar and further elaborated variations on the theme:

Isaiah 29:15-16

Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Here the rebellion of the people against God is answered with the potter's clay analogy. They are just his clay - are they really going to deny his existence/power or his wisdom?

And it gets stronger:

Isaiah 45:7-12

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

In this passage, God takes ultimate responsibility for everything. He even says "I ... create evil," not that he is morally culpable for it, but that he decrees it. The potsherds can debate each other, but none of them can stand in judgment over God or demand that God account for his actions toward them. It's as absurd as if a child was to question the authority of his parents to procreate him. God says he is not accountable to man for what he has made.

Moreover, the righteous (like Job) acknowledge their relationship to God as the potter:

Isaiah 64:8

But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

When we see these precedents for Romans 9, the point in Romans 9 becomes clear.  Paul is arguing that the question is impudent.  Man cannot question God's holding man responsible, even though no one can resist the will of God.  That's like a pot saying, "why did you make me this way?" to the potter. Paul affirms that God, like a potter, does have a purpose for his different pots.  Moreover, for Paul that is enough to vindicate the potter.

Occasionally, we are told that some other passage is the precedent for Romans 9.  I would refer to these as faux precedent passages. The most popular of these is in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 18:1-13

The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good. And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing.

The point of the passage in this case is to emphasize God's mercy in judgment. God is saying that he is free to change the way that Israel is treated, and he offers to do so if they will repent.  There is an aspect of sovereignty here, but this aspect of sovereignty has to do with God's ability to accept repentance.  Such a point does not fit with the objection about why God finds fault despite having an irresistible will.

We see a similar theme in some of the non-canonical inter-testamental books.

For example, in Sirach we find the following expression, which seems to be drawn from Jeremiah:

Sirach 33:13

As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best.

There is also an interesting passage in Wisdom.  This passage, on its own, has some nice linguistic similarities to the Romans passage.  However, in context the point being made is totally different, namely about the absurdity of idolatry.  Don't worship a statue: it could just as easily have been a chamberpot.

Wisdom 15:7

For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.

Still it provides the intuition behind the apostle's argument: the potter is sovereign over the clay the same way that God is sovereign over mankind.  Just as it would be absurd for a chamberpot to complain about its duties, seeing as it wasn't consulted regarding what it was going to be, so it is absurd for men to complain that God's showing mercy on whom He will, and hardening others is somehow unfair.

-TurretinFan

Finally, I can Agree with Peter Enns about Something

"You and I Have a Different God, I think," is the title of Enns' post, and he goes on to state that "I think we have a different God." In that much, I think he's right.

He claims:

And the Gospel certainly does not teach me that God is up there, at a distance, guiding the production of a diverse and rich biblical canon that nevertheless contains a single finely-tuned system of theology that he expects his people to be obsessed with “getting right” (and lash out at those who don’t agree).

But my God declares, by the mouth of Jude: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3)

I don't adopts Enns' caricature of our position, but even his caricature highlights the difference between us.  Enns does not think that the history of Genesis 1 is true history.  He does not believe that God created the world in six days.  If he does not believe what is plainly stated, should we be surprised that he doesn't appreciate debate over fine points of theology?

-TurretinFan

The Little Problem for the Shroud of Turin

John 20:4-8

So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Steve Ray is promoting yet another attempt to bolster the Shroud of Turin as well as a poem in its honor. I'm sure that the Shroud is good for Steve Ray's pilgrimage business, but the inconvenient truth is that the shroud cannot possibly be real. Christ's head was wrapped separately from the rest of his body.

It was a little disappointing to see that Greg Koukl and Gary Habermas were promoting the Shroud as well (link to mp3 courtesy of Jason Engwer). I note that Jason seems to think that Haberbmas addressed John 20, but if you listen to the podcast, I think you won't find it addressed.

There are plenty of other objections. C-14 dating places the shroud in the middle ages. Jesus was wrapped with spices.

John 19:39-42

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

The shroud is about 14 ft long. The way it appears to have been arranged around a body is by being placed one full body length under and then over the feet and back up to the head. This is a very odd way of wrapping a body, particularly if the body is being bound together with a significant amount of spices. One would expect a wrapping more like that of a mummy, rather than a simple sandwich. Indeed, ὀθονίοις is plural, suggesting that multiple sheets of linen were used for wrapping the body, rather than a single sheet.

So, we can be sure that the shroud is a hoax, whether that hoax is a medieval forgery or something else.

-TurretinFan

Response to Paul Owen Regarding Mormons and those in Rome

In response to Dr. James White's comments on whether those in the Roman commmunion and in the LDS church are saved, Paul Owen responded:

Mormons do NOT deny that Jesus is the God-man who died for our sins and rose again. They affirm all those points explicitly. And I see no reason to deny that many devoted followers of Christ can be found within the ranks of the LDS church.

Where to begin?  No, Mormons do not believe Jesus was the God-man in the orthodox sense of that term.  They do not believe in the hypostatic union.  No, Mormons do not hold that Jesus died for our sins in the orthodox sense of that term, they think "Although we are redeemed unconditionally from the universal effects of the Fall, we are accountable for our own sins." (source)  In fact the doctrines of incarnation and the atonement are two important points of difference between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism - not to mention the denial of the Father's true divinity, in the sense of being God from all eternity.

One reason (of many) to deny that there are many devoted followers of Christ in the LDS church is that the LDS church does not teach its followers the historical Jesus.  There may be followers of Christ who are very deceived for a time, but the fruit of the Spirit would include an opening of their eyes to the manifest error of the LDS church.

P.O. continued:

Of course Roman Catholics are being saved! (I think it is better to put it that way and to say “is saved”.) Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, who believes in Christ, and “abides” in his body (through divinely appointed channels of grace) is being saved. The notion that God would exclude a person from heaven because they formally deny that faith is the “sole” instrument of their justification is absurd, and turns God into some sort of petty cosmic theology professor, who is more concerned with a person’s lexicon than the state of their heart. Anyone who can read the rich devotional writings of Pope Benedict XVI and conclude that this is not a true follower of Christ is spiritually tone deaf.

No man can serve two masters.  The fictional Mary of Rome's imagination is one master - the God of the Bible is another.  It is plain that Benedict XVI is devoted to the former (here are three recent examples), therefore it is clear that he is not devoted to the latter, even if he attempts to worship God along side his idols.

The point is not that Christians are saved by perfect doctrine, but that one must trust in Christ alone for salvation - and most of those with whom I've interacted in the Roman communion are not doing that.  God is a Jealous God, his name is Jealous.  They trust in "Mary" (not the historical one - but the one they imagine can hear their prayers), they trust in their "saints," and they even trust in their church and their pope.  They are encouraged to trust in their works to ensure their final justification.  That's building one's house on the sand.

Does that mean all those in the Roman communion are lost?  No.  It just means that in order to be saved, one must trust in Christ alone, which means not following what the Roman magisterium and Roman heirarchy practice and preach.

I won't even go into the problems that P.O. himself has with his soteriology, beyond pointing out that it is plain that he does not hold to sola fide in the traditional Reformed sense of the term, no matter what his allegiance at the moment may be (he claims to be Anglican).

Ultimately none of us knows the inner secrets of a person’s soul and walk with Christ. We can only judge them by their fruit (and yes, heresy and false teachings can enter into that judgment). But any definition of “Christian” which would exclude the vast majority of Christians prior to the formalization of the Reformation slogans and definitions of justification is obviously short-sighted!

The vision trouble seems to be on P.O.'s side, for he has not properly seen the argument before him.  We are not saying that people need to perfect doctrine, but rather that they must trust in Christ alone for salvation.  People were doing that since the Apostolic era and people were doing that before Martin Luther was a twinkle in his father's eye.

The real problem is defining Christianity by self-labeling, rather than by the Gospel.  There will be many on judgment day who will say "Lord Lord!" but Christ will tell them, "I never knew you."

-TurretinFan

Third Marian Strike for Benedict XVI

Proceeding backward in time (from part 1 and part 2), we come now to a third instance of Mariolatry in Benedict XVI's visit to Cuba.  According to the Vatican Information System, in an address on March 26, 2012, Benedict XVI stated:

... since the beginning she has been very much present in the personal lives of Cubans as well as in the great events of the nation ... for she is honoured by all as the true mother of the Cuban people.  Devotion to the "Virgen Mambisa" has sustained the faith and inspired the defence and promotion of all that gives dignity to the human condition and fundamental rights, and it continues to do so today with ever greater strength, giving visible witness to the fruitfulness of the preaching of the Gospel in these lands, and to the profound Christian roots which shape the deepest identity of the Cuban soul. Following in the footsteps of countless pilgrims down the centuries, I too wish to go to El Cobre to kneel at the feet of the Mother of God, to thank her for her concern for all her Cuban children, and to ask her to guide the future of this beloved nation in the ways of justice, peace, freedom and reconciliation ...

Note that Benedict XVI confesses to the desire not only to go to the idol at El Cobre, but also to assume a posture of worship, namely that of kneeling.  He advocates religious devotion to the idol.  Moreover, he also, again, confesses to a desire to attempt to communicate with her including not just a request for guidance, but also thanks - something that cannot reasonably be interpreted as a request for her to pray.

- TurretinFan

More Marian Madness from Benedict XVI

Again, according to the Vatican Information Service (VIS), on March 27, 2012, Benedict XVI gave an address at the "Shrine of 'Nuestra Senora de la Caridad del Cobre'," (Our Lady of Charity of Cobre) (the idol I mentioned in my previous post).  In that address he stated:

Let all those you meet know, whether near or far, that I have entrusted to the Mother of God the future of your country, advancing along the ways of renewal and hope, for the greater good of all Cubans. I have also prayed to the Virgin for the needs of those who suffer, of those who are deprived of freedom, those who are separated from their loved ones or who are undergoing times of difficulty. I have placed in her Immaculate Heart young people, that they may be authentic friends of Christ and that they may not succumb to things which bring sadness in their wake.

Notice that Benedict expressess faith in Mary ("I have entrusted to the Mother of God the future of your country") and admits to praying to her (" I have also prayed to the Virgin for ..."). 

VIS also reports:

The Holy Father paused in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament then before the image of the Virgin. He lit a candle and recited the prayer of the Virgin of Charity, the Jubilee Year ritual by which pilgrims may obtain plenary indulgence.

Notice not only the idoltry in terms of worshiping the physical elements as though they were God, but as well the idolatry in terms of Mariolatry.  There is a direct parallel there.  First, he pauses to pray before what he imagines to be God and then he pauses to pray before the image of Mary.  Moreover, he recited the "prayer of the Virgin of Charity," which is often referred to as the Prayer to Our Lady of Charity (here is a copy).

Highlights from the prayer:

Most Holy Mother of Charity, who came to us as a messenger of peace across the sea, you are the Mother of all.
...
To your motherly heart we entrust our desires and hopes, our work and our prayers.
...
We place ourselves under your mantle of protection!
...

Notice that this prayer seems to be both the basis for Benedict XVI's "entrust" comments above as well as his "mantle of protection" claim and his "presence" claim we mentioned in the previous post.  But where is the truth? This is nothing other than idolatry, even if he claims (as he does) that devotion to Mary should lead one to devotion to Jesus, and even if he acknowledges Jesus to be the Rock ("I encourage all the sons and daughters of this dear country to continue to build their lives on the firm rock which is Jesus Christ ...").  I would encourage them to do that too, but not by reference to the lying idol of Cobre in a shrine in Cuba, but in reference to the inspired Word of God found in the Bible.

-TurretinFan

(Real ?) Presence of Mary - So Saith Benedict XVI

As reported by the Vatican Information Service, on March 28, 2012, in a farewell address in Cuba, Benedict XVI stated:

As I bid you a heartfelt adios, I ask our Lady of Charity of El Cobre to protect all Cubans under her mantle, to sustain them in the midst of their trials and to obtain from Almighty God the grace that they most desire. Hasta siempre, Cuba, a land made beautiful by the maternal presence of Mary. 

This is not simply a request for Mary to pray for the people of Cuba.  It is specifically asking Mary to

• protect the Cubans under her mantle, 
• sustain them in the midst of their trials, and
• obtain from Almighty God the grace that they most desire.

Perhaps the third item could be viewed simply as asking Mary to pray, but the other two are asking for Mary to provide sustainance and the specific protection of Mary.  But how can Mary protect?

Here we have the most interesting part of Benedict XVI's comment.  He alleges that Mary's "maternal presence" is in Cuba, and that this "maternal presence" makes Cuba beautiful.

But where is the historical Mary?  Her body is an unknown grave and her soul is in heaven.  She is not present, body or soul, in Cuba.

Lady of Charity of El Cobre is an idol, it's not the historical Mary.  That idol has no power to bring the spirit of Mary down from heaven.  In fact, it has no power of its own at all.  It had to be rescued from the waters of Nipe Bay in 1606 by three fishermen.  It is the Cubans who are the hope of the idol (if it even had a spirit to hope!), not the idol that is the hope of the Cubans.  They rescued it, but it can never rescue them.

And neither is Mary, either real or imagined, a hope for the Cubans.  She is a spirit who has entered into glory, awaiting the resurrection of the body.  She does not have a mantle of protection to offer.  The only hope for the Cubans - as for all mankind - is the son of the real Mary, namely Jesus Christ the righteous.  He alone is the rock of our salvation, for he is not merely man but Emmanuel, God with us.

Cuba is a land made beautiful by God's mercy and kindness.  It is wrong for Benedict XVI to attribute this to Mary or her imagined presence.

-TurretinFan

Picking the Low-hanging Cherries

Darryl Hart has posted an article (2K Cherries 2Hot 2Handle) responding to my friend Lane Keister's decision to stop discussing two kingdoms theology on his blog.  Unfortunately, the article serves as an illustration of the problem that led my friend to stop discussing the topic.

Hart seems to have a fundamental problem distinguishing argument from personality.  Read his post.  You'll find that after the first paragraph it's all about attacking his critics - not for their views - but attacking their integrity.  Here are some examples:

• "some who object to 2k have so made up their minds about the idea and its proponents that they will hear nothing in defense of the doctrine; they won’t even read the books written on 2k"
  
• "two undeniable historical developments exist that 2k critics won’t accept"
  
• "In which case, they have no more claim to Calvin as a standard for religion and politics than 2kers do. Yet, here’s the key. 2kers are honest. They actually admit that they disagree with Calvin."
  
• "And this means that the critics of 2k are either unaware of how little standing the original WCF chapter 23 or Belgic Art. 36 has in conservative Reformed churches. Or if they know of confessional revision and use the original documents to denounce 2kers, they are dishonest."
  
• "Or perhaps they are simply foolish (and impolitely so)."

(and that's not to mention the comment box, where one finds jewels of charity such as "You philosophers sure are clever (but undermedicated).")

I'm sure this post will sail over Hart's head.  In the post itself, he calls attention to the fact that I have previously pointed out to him that his approach of attacking the person of the critics (for example, accusing them of not being gracious) is ad hominem.  His response is that "I do not see how this point is beside the point."

But what about those two "undeniable historical developments" that form the only substance to his post?

The first of the alleged "undeniable historical developments" is "that the critics of 2k do not advocate the execution of adulterers or heretics."  There are three layers of rebuttal to this point.  First, not all critics of E2k refuse to advocate the execution of adulterers and blasphemers (one assumes that's what Hart means, since that's what Calvin advocated).  Second, Calvin himself seems to have thought that in some cases the penalties should be dependent on the circumstances, including the penalty for adultery (See ICR IV:20:16). Third, whether or not critics of E2k are themselves little clones of Calvin is quite the beside the point.   No critics of E2k claim to be clones of Calvin, and yet whether or not they are clones of Calvin they can still observe that E2k advocates have so radically departed from Calvin that Calvin's views are treated as intolerable and absurd.  There's a difference between the sons of Calvin and the sons of the Quakers, even if neither is identical to Calvin.

The second of the alleged "undeniable historical developments" is "that all of the Reformed churches that belong to the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council have rejected the teaching of both the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession on the civil magistrate."  In order to check this claim, I carefully studied the standards of the hundreds, dozens, twelve denominations in NAPARC.  Hart's assessment is wrong.  The OPC and PCA both have not rejected the teachings of the WCF on the civil magistrate, they have broader standards, so that one is not required to hold those views (as already demonstrated here), although their standards do rule out E2k (as explained here).  The ERQ subscribes to the original WCF, but permits liberty of conscience on several sections, including the sections that E2k finds most objectionable.  The FRCNA states that they fully subscribe to the original three forms of unity (including the Belgic Confession).  Should I go on?  At best, the RPCNA could be said to have "rejected" them, based on the ambiguous wording of their "testimony" that serves as an interpretive guide to the standards.  (Of course, not all conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches in North America are in NAPARC, but even with Hart's cherry-picking ...).

Now, Hart makes a fuss about the fact that he's an historian ("From the perspective of this 2k advocate who also doubles as a historian, two undeniable historical developments exist that 2k critics won’t accept — sort of like denying that the North defeated the South in 1865; you may not like it, but how do you deny what happened at Appomattox?").  But what's wrong?  Is Hart just too lazy to research things?  Surely he's not intentionally lying to people while bolstering his claims with his reputation as an historian (some of his historical work is, in fact, well respected).  So, what then?

One answer is that Hart is simply avoiding addressing the actual knotty issues of E2k as compared both with Scripture and with the Reformed tradition with respect to which E2k represents a significant departure.  Until he gets his head straight, his comments and reviews will continue to be the low-hanging fruit in the discussion, but since he's one of the most vocal advocates, they will need to be picked.

-TurretinFan

Pastor Wells' Review of "The Escondido Theology"

Daniel Wells, a self-described "young pastor," has posted an interesting review of Frame's "The Escondido Theology."  It is interesting, because I think both Frame's supporters and supporters of E2k will find things in it they won't like.  So, perhaps this provides a good example of a "balanced" review of the book.